Using accelerometer data to calculate distance

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on using accelerometer data to quantify hand motion, specifically aiming to calculate speed and distance from impulse measurements. The user is struggling with the accuracy of their distance calculations, finding results that seem implausible. Suggestions include verifying the calculation of scalar acceleration and utilizing SUVAT equations for reliable results, as well as considering noise reduction techniques like low-pass filtering. Additionally, performing calculations in the frequency domain using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is recommended to improve accuracy. The conversation emphasizes the importance of proper integration methods and initial acceleration values in achieving accurate distance measurements.
JacobTV
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am looking for some help, or even advice as how to proceed.

I am trying to quantify an impulse from a hand (a high velocity low amplitude motion). In attempt to do that, I've tried attaching an accelerometer to my hand.
My problem is, that the values I'd like to calculate as an objective measure of the quality of the motion is speed and distance.
Here is one example of some of the data:

Date, t, Acceleration X (g), Acceleration Y (g), Acceleration Z (g), Acceleration Scalar (g), Speed (m/2)
2015-11-19 07:57:01 +0000, 43.609411, 0.382812, 0.359375, -0.875000, 0.020451, 1.589126
2015-11-19 07:57:01 +0000, 43.655306, 0.367188, 0.414062, -0.855469, 0.018872, 1.589993
2015-11-19 07:57:01 +0000, 43.699334, 2.187500, 0.417969, -1.816406, 1.873880, 1.672496
2015-11-19 07:57:01 +0000, 43.759296, 0.632812, -0.160156, -1.070312, 0.253663, 1.687706
2015-11-19 07:57:01 +0000, 43.804159, -1.003906, -0.941406, -0.929688, 0.660841, 1.717353
2015-11-19 07:57:01 +0000, 43.851403, 0.078125, 0.781250, -0.699219, 0.051362, 1.719780

The calculations I've attempted with this data is as follows:

t0=43,655306
t1=43,759296
dt=0,10399
g=1,87388
a= g*9,815=18,3921322 m/s2
s=(a/6)*dt3=0,003447113 m

I am assuming that distance is a second integral of acceleration

From this I get that the distance of the motion is 3,4mm which sounds implausible.

Is there another way to calculate or use the accelerometer to get the data I need?

I hope you can help?
Jacob
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi
Looking at your table, the scalar acceleration would be √ (Ax2+Ay2+Az2) (?)
The result (in the table) should be greater than any of the individual components but it doesn't seem to be. What is that "scalar"?
What would you expect the speed to be, after 0.1s? Those SUVAT equations tell you s = ut + at2/2 for constant acceleration. What does that give you? That answer is 'reliable' so compare it with what you got. Compare the SUVAT equation with yours. It looks like you've done one too many integrations for your data. I think you are thinking in terms of Δa to give you your answer but then you should also include the initial acceleration value (which is what SUVAT does) But, of course, you would be aiming at doing all this in 3D so check the 1D answer first.
 
cosmik debris said:
You will probably get a lot of noise in your calculation using integration to find velocity and distance, a better way is to do an FFT and do the calculations in the frequency domain.

http://blog.prosig.com/2010/12/16/m...tween-acceleration-velocity-and-displacement/
Definitely the better approach but a bit of a dark art for a beginner. To reduce noise effects it is often convenient to do a low pass filter ( average over a number of samples of acceleration)
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
24K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
25K